Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Recommended Posts

Just now, Neverbefore said:

Savilles foot is only there because he's made a lunging tackle that didnt get the ball.

He only didn't touch the ball because he was immediately booted by their player.

I wouldn't be arguing this point if Saville had wiped out a player running with the ball, but Saville has intercepted a pass before that player has touched the ball in any way and is then fouled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 840
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

K Look, he magicked him out of the water!

Quest will usually side with the ref from what I've seen over the past few years, so the fact they unequivocally didn't in this instance says it all to me.

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

No, he doesn't.  He kicks the ball.  Saville's boot is already past the ball, in the air, cos he misses the ball.

He kicked through Saville, a foul on Saville.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TeaCider24 said:

He kicked Saville.

No, he kicked the ball first mate.  If Saville touched the ball at any point it could be foul the other way but he doesn't.  Their lad is going to kick the ball, Saville has simply missed it.  Therefore it's a foul and a penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no proving anything either way with stills of it. The only thing I can say for sure is Saville doesn't get the ball of his own volition, he misses it. If he touches the ball at all, it's because Bidwell has moved his foot in the direction of it. If the question is what does Bidwell hit first, Saville or the ball, then we're getting into such marginal granular detail that it's frankly impossible to blame the ref either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wilsoncgp said:

There's no proving anything either way with stills of it. The only thing I can say for sure is Saville doesn't get the ball of his own volition, he misses it. If he touches the ball at all, it's because Bidwell has moved his foot in the direction of it. If the question is what does Bidwell hit first, Saville or the ball, then we're getting into such marginal granular detail that it's frankly impossible to blame the ref either way.

Even if he kicks savilles foot first it's a penalty. Saville is impeding the player from taking a shot without playing the ball. It's the very definition of a foul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

There's no proving anything either way with stills of it. The only thing I can say for sure is Saville doesn't get the ball of his own volition, he misses it. If he touches the ball at all, it's because Bidwell has moved his foot in the direction of it. If the question is what does Bidwell hit first, Saville or the ball, then we're getting into such marginal granular detail that it's frankly impossible to blame the ref either way.

You can completely blame the referee, given he rightly gave a corner, noticed the £50 notes stuffed in his shorts and then changed his mind and gave a penalty instead.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Neverbefore said:

Even if he kicks savilles foot first it's a penalty. Saville is impeding the player from taking a shot without playing the ball. It's the very definition of a foul.

The player wasn't in control of the ball, and only touched the ball via a foul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

No, he kicked the ball first mate.  If Saville touched the ball at any point it could be foul the other way but he doesn't.  Their lad is going to kick the ball, Saville has simply missed it.  Therefore it's a foul and a penalty.

So if a player takes a shot then runs into another player then they get a foul - because that’s the logical extrapolation of what you are saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Saville hasn't touched the ball and never does.

Yeah but should of been dismissed to even up the earlier incorrect decision for our legit goal 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TeaCider24 said:

The player wasn't in control of the ball, and only touched the ball via a foul.

Saville is the one who lunged in. Their player had a clean strike of the ball it saville hadn't dived in, therefore if saville doesn't play the ball he's impeding the striker illegally. This isn't hard stuff to comprehend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SmogDane said:

I blame Bettinelli.. he should have saved the penna.. Randolph would

The one criticism you can give to Randolph is he never once got close to saving a penalty for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Latest Posts

    • The administrators must be worried about HMRC. They supposedly owe them £26m.
    • I presume the continued legal action is to ensure that 9-12 point deduction that they are due for breaching P&S is actually carried out. It's all gone quiet since they went in to administration.
    • Well they're currently on -2 points. Another 9 point deduction would make that -11, which is currently 18 points from safety. That would be a serious amount of ground to make up and would require 3 teams above them to have pretty horrendous seasons, in order to overhaul them. I'd rather see Mel Morris get taken for every penny he's got, or otherwise punished to the full extent of the law. Instead he's wringing his hands and saying he's "sorry" while the club that was under his stewardship could end up going to the wall, if the administrators can't find a suitable buyer.  
    • Does Gibson seriously holding a grudge for them outbidding us on Waghorn 😂
    • They haven't actually been punished for cheating yet, which is the whole point of principle for Gibson. They've had a self-inflicted 12 point deduction for administration. They're currently only 9 points from safety, that is far from insurmountable with most of the season left, and the pressure needs to be kept up to ensure they get the punishment they're due.

×
×
  • Create New...